Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/108

Narinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Easy Day Store - Opp.Party(s)

Jarnail Singh

25 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                 Consumer Complaint No.  108 of 23.07.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    25.10.2019

 

 

Sh. Narinder Singh son of Sh. Charanjit Singh, resident of Village Satiana, District Ludhiana 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

Easy Day Store, Future Retail Limited, Khasra No.3025, 637, 3024, Morinda, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar through its Store Manager       

   ....Opposite Party

 

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant  

O.P. ex-parte 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to provide free carry bags to all the customer forthwith who purchase articles from its shop/store; to restrain the O.P. from selling any expired items to any of their customers; to take a strict action against the O.P. for selling expired items in their shop; to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.4/- wrongly charged for the carry bag; to refund Rs.12.50/- to the complainant which the O.P. has wrongly sold the expired butter chicken mix; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges; any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deems fit may also be granted in the interest  of justice.   

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 16.7.2019, the complainant selected and purchased certain articles from the O.P. store and took them to the billing counter for making necessary payment. At the counter, the cashier handed over the said articles, without putting them into a carry bag, and when he asked him to provide the carry bag to put the said articles into the same then the cashier had put the articles into the carry bag and had asked for an amount of Rs.138/- as the bill price and the articles which were purchased by him were given to the complainant in a carry bag by cashier of the O.P. Thereafter, when the complainant saw the invoice/receipt then he was shocked to see that the O.P. had charged Rs.4/- for carry bag. After reaching home, when the complainant went to cook the butter chicken mix which he had purchased from the O.P. along with other articles and the O.P. had charged Rs.12.50/- for the said butter chicken mix and then the complainant checked the expiry dates of the said butter chicken mix then the complainant was shocked on seeing that the said articles i.e. Butter Chicken Mix had already expired as the said butter chicken mix was to be used/best before 9 months from its packaging, but the said butter chicken mix purchased by the complainant from O.P. is of dated 9.10.2018 and as per the said date the same was expired on 8.7.2019. Hence, this complaint   

3.    On being put to notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P., accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.10.2019. 

4.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with document Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.  

5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.    Complainant counsel Sh. Jarnail Singh, argued that on 16.7.2019, complainant selected to purchase a certain items from the O.P. store and after purchase, the complainant demanded carry bag and made payment of bill of Rs.138/-. When the complainant came to know that O.P. had charged Rs.4/- more i.e. the price of the carry bag then he was shocked. Learned counsel also argued that on the same day vide invoice dated 16.7.2019, the O.P. sold expiry butter chicken mix and charged Rs.12.50/- from the complainant. He made prayer that charging Rs.4/- towards carry bag and selling item of expiry date amounts to deficiency in service. By referring the evidence, learned counsel prayed to allow the complaint with cost.

7.    It is pertinent to mention that after filing the complaint, notice was issued to the O.P. but none appeared and was proceeded against ex-parte.

8.    So far the bill/invoice dated 16.7.2019 is concerned i.e. issued by the Easy Day Club but it is not mentioned in whose favour it has been issued. Further in the bottom charged Rs.4/- towards carry bag. Without going into detail, this forum has come to conclusion qua filing of the complaint by Narinder Singh, it is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable. 

9.    Coming to the deficiency, it is strongly prayed by the complainant counsel qua the charging of the carry bag as well as selling the expiry date item. Complainant placed on file carry bag as well as pack butter chicken of mother mark. It is apparent that as and when any of the customer goes to the Easy Day Club or of any other group then he has to select the item qua his needs. Item which are put on sale are displayed when the consumer selects them. Then  he supposed to check the expiry date and price. At the same time, Easy Day Club or any other group displayed the MRP and own price after concession. The forum has gone through the butter chicken packet which was manufactured on 9.10.2018 and its validity was expiring within nine months from the date of its manufacturing. As per the complainant version the expiry date was of few days. The price of the item is recorded Rs.50/- but the invoice/receipt dated 16.7.2019 indicates the price of the item of Rs.50/- then minus Rs.37.50/- and finally O.P. charged Rs.12,50/-. The complainant made the payment of the packet for only Rs.12.50/- instead of MRP Rs.50/-. This point give inference that complainant knowingly selected the item of expiry dated taking benefit of Rs.37.50/-. So this forum has come to the opinion that complainant himself selected the expiry date item for the benefit of Rs.37,50/-. He purchased the item of Rs.50/- only or payment was made of the said item of Rs.12.50/- only.

10.  Next coming to the charging of Rs.4/- towards carry bag. It is mentioned in the complaint itself by the complainant that when he purchased the articles then he demanded the carry bag. On the asking of the complainant, the O.P. supplied the carry bag to the complainant and the receipt of Rs.138/- was issued. The complainant made the payment of bill/receipt is Ex.C2 and its bottom Rs.4/- is recorded of Non Woven Fabric. Complainant argued that O.P. is exparte. But the entire file speaks that complainant selected the item and put before the counter for payment and itself demanded the carry bag which was supplied. When itself demanded carry bag then it cannot be said that O.P. forced the complainant to take the carry bag or to make the payment of Rs.4/-. So no deficiency is made out.

11.  Complainant counsel relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh, in Appeal No.98 of 2019, titled as Bata India Limited Vs Dinesh Parshad Raturi, decided on 22.7.2019, in the above said law, the District Forum, as well as the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh, held that O.P. is duty bound to provide free carry bag to all the customers who purchase the item from their shop and charging price amounts to unfair trade practice. After detailed discussion, the law is laid down that O.P. charged the price qua the carry bag that was ordered to be returned back with costs.

Coming to the case in hand, the complainant himself demanded carry               bag and himself selected and purchased the expiry date item with only           payment of Rs.12.50/- and by getting benefit of minus Rs.37.50/-.

              There is one another authority/order of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, in First Appeal No.163 of 2019, titled as Radhakrishnan. R Vs. Big Bazar, Mayur Vihar Extension, Unit of Future Retail Limited and its relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

     " It may also add that the gazette notification relied upon by the appellant is simple to the effect that plastic bag would not be used in order to save environment. But it does not mean that the shop keeper has to supply carry bag. The intending purchaser must carry bag from his house. If he prefer not to carry bag and wants the shop keeper supply the same, he must pay extra for it. Consumer Protection Act is meant for saving consumer from          being exploited. It is not meant for wind fall or making purchaser millionaire over night. In this regard reliance can be placed on decision of Hon'ble National Commission, in FA No.847 of 2017, titled as Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta Vs Vodafone East Limited".      

12.   Appreciating the laws laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in First Appeal No.847 of 2017, titled as Dr. Uttamkumar Samanta Vs Vodafone East Limited and 4 Others & Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, it is held that complaint is not able to prove deficiency in service and the same stands dismissed. 

13.   After appraising the present case, the forum has found that for meager amount of Rs.4/- i.e. charges of carry bag, the complainant has sought the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.20,000/-, which on the face of it is proportionately high and on the face of it is unreasonable         and albeit absurd. It is clearly evident that the complainant is attempting to misuse the statutory processes provided for better protection of the interest of consumers to attempt wrong gains and to create 'nuisance value' qua the O.P. The complaint is frivolous as well as vexatious. It is also to be seen that the time and resources of this forum have been wasted in such manner and for such evident purpose. This forum has also noted that the complainant is well educated person who prepared this complaint in a misplaced and in irrational approach towards consumer justice through machinery of Consumer Fora.

14.   Referring this judgment cover all the four corners of the judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in FA No.847 of 2017, titled as Dr. Uttam Samanta Vs Vodafone East Limited, decided on 5.10.2018. So on the basis of authorities referred above, no benefit can be extended to the complainant. Hence, the complaint stands dismissed. Leaving the parties to bear their own cost  

16.   The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of     costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.         

          ANNOUNCED                                                       (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

           Dated.25.10.2019                                      PRESIDENT
 

 

                                              (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                             MEMBER